# Roman Catholic Diocese of Newark v. Ho-Ho-Kus Borough

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 23, 1966 · 47 N.J. 211

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9749159

## Case

- **Full name:** Roman Catholic Diocese of Newark, a Religious Corporation of the State of New Jersey, Et Al, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus, a Municipal Corporation of the County of Bergen and State of New Jersey, Defendant-Appellant, and Charles A. Beltramini and Eleanor K. Beltramini, His Wife, Et Al, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants, and John A. Byrem and Eleanor P. Byrem, His Wife, Defendants-Intervenors
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** May 23, 1966
- **Citations:** 47 N.J. 211; 220 A.2d 97; 1966 N.J. LEXIS 206
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Francis
- **Judges:** Hall
- **Cited by:** 25 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9749159

## Opinion text

*225 Francis, J.
(dissenting). I cannot agree with the result reached by the majority for the reasons expressed in my dissent in the original ease. 42 N. J. 556, 567 (1964).
In his concurring opinion Justice Hall has stated in crystal clear fashion an incidental but significant problem which inheres in controversies like the present one. In capsule form the issue may be expressed as regionalism vs. provincialism, with the latter now firmly ensconced in control as the result of recognition by the majority of my colleagues of the comprehensive zoning power of the local authorities with respect to public and private non-profit schools. And it follows, of course, that so long as such pervasive power continues to be paramount, the public welfare as represented by regional interests or needs will be subordinated to the parochial views of a single municipality. Thus it seemed to me originally, and the view is strengthened now by Justice Hall’s observations, that problems arising out of the location of public or private non-profit secondary schools, particularly those designed to serve regional educational needs, should be resolved by the State Board of Education. In my judgment that board has plenary express or implied authority to deal with the subject to the exclusion of district lines established by a municipal zoning ordinance. 42 N. J., at p. 570.
Moreover, as the dissent indicated, the power of the State Board would not be exhausted by a simple approval or veto of a secondary school location selected by the school authorities, whether the particular school is to be regional or local in its service. And it is unlikely that local aesthetic considerations would be ignored or that community desires to have the physical impact of the school structure on the neighborhood lessened would be shunted aside. Regulation of such matters as “area of plot in relation to size of school, play yards, sidelines, front and rear setback lines,” buffer areas, shrubbing, treeing and the like, is certainly within the implied power of the board, and undoubtedly would be engaged in with due regard for such neighborhood interests. 42 N. J., at p. 571.
*226 For reversal — Chief Justice Weintraub aud Justices Jacobs, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Hanbman. — 6.
For affirmance — Justice Francis — 1.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9749159. Public record. Not legal advice.